RAMESH N DIXIT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Truck bearing registration number MEZ 5593 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the Range Forest Officer. Sirsi (Sirsi) (R.F.O.) on 10-6-1983 after nightfall in a forest area near village Dasarakoppa within the range of the R.F.O. The R.F.O. seized the truck on the ground that the same was being used to smuggle forest produce belonging to the Government. He seized some logs and billets of Mathi trees from the truck. He also seized about 16,000 Cmtrs. of firewood lying by the side of the truck. According to him the Driver of the said truck and others who were with him ran away and escaped from being arrested.

(2.) In accordance with Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) the R.F.O. placed the truck and the other materials seized by him before the Dy. Conservator of Forests, Sirsi Division, Sirsi, who was also the Officer authorised to exercise powers under Section 71A (the Authorised Officer).

(3.) The Authorised Officer issued a show cause notice to the registered owner of the truck, this petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why the truck along with the other materials seized should not be confiscated to Government as provided in Section 71A. In answer to this, the petitioner filed his written statement on 3-8-1983 stating that on 10-6-1983 he had sent the truck with the driver to village Dasarakoppa in order to transport some rice bran (husk) to Haveri town; that at that place a certain Shivanna of the village had engaged the truck to transport fire-wood from Kalangi jungle to his residence promising the driver that he had the necessary transit passes; that the Driver, when the fire-wood was being loaded, had felt suspicious that Shivanna may not have the necessary permit to carry the fire-wood and therefore had started unloading the timber ; and that at that time the forest officials had gone to that spot and on seeing them that Shivanna and others had ran away; and that being afraid his driver Mallikarjuna had also ran away and that his whereabouts were not known to him. He has further stated therein that he had instructed his driver before sending the truck with him not to transport any material unless the same is found to have been covered with necessary permit or licence under the Forest Act or Essential Commodities Act, etc. It is his case that he is innocent in the matter and that in view of the fact that he had taken all the necessary precautions and had warned his driver, he was in no way responsible for what had happened and therefore, the truck be released from attachment and handed over to him.